92 comments:

This reads like something out of a novel. Kudos to this fellow for his skill, which allows us all to savor some poetic justice; but ultimately we must turn to the wisdom of a great leader, who asked "what difference...does it make?"

The struggle in Afghanistan has produced several remarkable sniper stories. (Including a new record for longest confirmed kill.)

I've spent a little time on a rifle range. One time, I took a course which ended with an attempt to hit a target at 500 yds (450 meters). The rifle didn't have a scope, though I had the aid of a spotter with a scope.

I hit the target on my second shot.

However, that gave me a much deeper respect for marksmen who train and operate in the 750-yd-plus ranges that snipers work in.

Ann,I think that you- and Meade too- should spend a morning at the range. You might like the experience. Remember, you are only shooting and hitting paper targets. They are not organic beings. There is no moral question to be answered in the act of pulling the trigger and shooting a paper target.So enjoy the experience of 'solving' a difficult problem.

Also, you might want to check out Emily Miller's stories in the WAPO. She has insights on gun ownership and use that apply to every day life. You might enjoy her story. Cheers and Happy Trails,

Can you point to a specific remark by me that is a "current demonstration of the process?"

How about this cookie:

Robert Cook said..."...they invaded US sovereign territory and took US citizens hostage for over a year. It wasn't until a president was elected that they feared would treat that like the act of war it was were those hostages released."

Rather, Reagan's people contacted Iran prior to the election and arranged to have Iran not release the hostages until Reagan was inaugurated. In payback, the Reagan administration began trading with Iran, providing them with weapons and also unlocking Iranian assets in American banks.

It was a quid pro quo, not "fear" of a real man in the office that brought about the release of the American hostages when they were.

If he did not have permission to kill the other 5 then he could face murder charges. For that matter, with the ERO's, did he have permission of the bomber to shoot at him? That's how stupid things are over there.

Nice shot, but it really means very little, as this little war is a lost deal. Just a small bit of gratification to take a few enemy down as payback for all the NATO troops blown up with bomb-grade Pakistani nitrate fertilizer we can't seem to want to push the Pakis from making and selling to the Taliban.

And of course, given the rules of engagement Bush II and Obama set, an occasional sanctioned sniper firing like this one is nice - given where snipers cannot shoot enemy walking in the open in most situations.

The whole thing is a bit ridiculous. Though some snipers get "blooded" and may themselves or through training, impart lessons to help kill future people at long distance.

"What difference does it make?"None regarding the fate of Afghanistan reverting to the medieval Muslim rule that they want...and the departure of unwelcome Westerners.I guess it does have a certain cache` for gun lovers thrilled by the idea of rifles as precision long range killing instruments and who glorify snipers as heroes. (traditionally, regular forces have no love of enemy snipers and never spare them as prisoners)..

One part of the story raises questions in my mind, which is the statement that the blown up Talib (singular of "Taliban") was carrying a machine gun. An AK-47, yes. A PKM plus a suicide vest? Why risk a PKM on a guy who's going to blow himself up?

BTW, the L115A3 sniper rifle that the British soldier used may be the most powerful in their army, but the US Barrett has pretty much the same muzzle velocity with a much, much heavier bullet. Look up the .50 BMG on Wikipedia. The .50 that the Barrett fires is at far left, the .338 Lapua that the British soldier fired is a slightly larger (8 mm longer) version of the cartridge next to it.

I, of course, don't personally know that Reagan (or his people) conspired with Iran to hold the American hostages longer to insure Carter's loss (and Reagan's victory) in the 1980 Presidential race, but reporting I've read on the matter is sufficiently convincing--and the timing of the hostages' release on Reagan's inauguration day sufficiently unlikely otherwise--that I do believe it.

And why not? Do you think Reagan (or his people) would have ethical objections to making such a deal to win the presidency? Ha! Not in the least! After all, they did deal with them later in their illegal Iran/Contra dealings...selling arms to our purported enemies in order to give the proceeds to the terrorist contras in Nicaragua when Congress blocked further American aid to them.

Robert Cook - yes, you're right, because Reagan had such doubt about his ability to win the Presidency from Carter. Given how swimmingly things were going in America in those years, dirty tricks were the only way to go.

Candidates for office--and their campaign advisors--never take victory for granted, and dirty tricks--known and unknown--are more common than not in many or most elections. As has been said, politics is a blood sport.

No matter that "It was Carter, dude." One never knows which way the electorate might swing; after all, who had even heard of Carter four years before, yet he won the office. Don't think that Reagan (or his people) didn't have concerns Carter might win reelection.

Why are you unable to conceive that Reagan (or his people) could have done the deal? Their later criminal dealings with Iran certainly demonstrate conclusively they lacked any ethical concerns that would preclude such an arrangement.

But this is an election where Reagan won 44 states. This was the election of stagflation and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Olympic boycott and all the rest. All Reagan had to do to win election was avoid being caught in bed with "a dead girl or a live boy" to paraphrase the joke.

Is it possible that Reagan's people risked Reagan's absolutely certain, slam-dunk sure thing election by engaging in negotiations and quid pro quo with America's enemies? I suppose it's possible, in some sweat-soaked paranoid black helicopter dreamland.

It just doesn't seem very likely, is all I'm saying. That type of behavior by Reagan and his people, leaked at the appropriate time, would pretty much have been the only thing that might have given Carter the win. I have a hard time believing Reagan's people would be that stupid.

YMMV of course -- and apparently it does. That's fine. Whatever works for you buddy.

I take as a given that any candidate for President is potentially that ambitious, duplicitous, and yes, evil.

Note, I always say "Reagan (or his people)." I'm willing to accept that, as with much else during his presidency, Reagan may have been unaware of this deal, but I absolutely believe the people behind him would have had not the least compunction and every willingness to do such a deal.

Robert Cook said... Their later criminal dealings with Iran certainly demonstrate conclusively they lacked any ethical concerns that would preclude such an arrangement.

Let's be clear: One trade is a regretful cost of getting your people home (maybe not worth it), and the other is treason for a political advantage. And Cook believes it "certain" and "conclusive" that deciding the cost is worth the benefit in the first trade means you have "no ethical concerns" about the other.

How does one come to believe there's no difference between a deal to get hostages home and a deal to keep them hostage longer?

Some people spend so much time competing to say the most outrageous thing they can think of about America, Republicans, economic freedom, etc they forget they aren't around the drum circle any longer.

I didn't say I'd seen "evidence" of such a plot; I said I'd read convincing reporting. The reporting, combined with the particularly unusual timing of the hostages' release--20 minutes after Reagan's inauguration--and with the later collusion between the Reagan administration and Iran in the criminal Iran-Contra affair (which amounted to: consorting with and providing arms to our declared enemies, in defiance of Congress, in order to obtain and provide illegal funding for terrorists in Nicaragua) does strike me as a trifecta of compelling circumstantial evidence.

FWIW, I voted for Reagan in 1980, having been raised in a Republican family and being (at that time) a registered Republican.

All Reagan had to do to win election was avoid being caught in bed with "a dead girl or a live boy" to paraphrase the joke.

Carter and Reagan were basically tied in the polls through October.

But a review of the late 1980 polls shows that while Reagan soared over the final week (following the campaign's one and only debate on Oct. 29), the contest up until that point was tightly competitive, not trending toward the incumbent Democratic president. At the time, the Associated Press reported "new polls say the race between the two men remains too close to call."Link

garage: "Carter and Reagan were basically tied in the polls through October."

That was the conventional wisdom and it would be difficult for any of us to say otherwise absent some sort of information/insight.

However, Reagan carrying 44 states implies that the tether any voters had to Carter were extremely tenuous.

This is one of those elections before media became "democratized" or "atomized" in the tech boom and there was alot written at the time that Reagan suffered initially due to the near (not total, but nearly so) stranglehold of the liberal (not yet fully leftist) media.

All the voters needed to see in the debates was that Reagan did not come off as he had been portrayed.

Well, Drago, I guess I just think you're naive for believing the self-flattering myths we tell ourselves and you think I'm foolish for accepting that realpolitik is the way of the world, not least by us.

Haven't the recent revelations in re: NSA spying on everyone wakened you up at least a little? Do you think one administration behaves ethically and leaves and another comes in and behaves unethically, alternating so on and so on according to the party and/or man in office? It's a continuum, and they're all dirty.

Robert Cook said...Well, Drago, I guess I just think you're naive for believing the self-flattering myths we tell ourselves and you think I'm foolish for accepting that realpolitik is the way of the world, not least by us.

LOL

Keep telling yourself that ace.

Do note how Cookie assigns belief in "self-flattering myths" to me, while excusing his own belief in complete myths that he himself articulated.

I didn't say I'd seen "evidence" of such a plot; I said I'd read convincing reporting.

You keep repeating the phrase "convincing reporting". Why the anonymity?

Some brief Googling indicates that The New Republican, The Village Voice, Newsweek, and Congressional Democrats have all investigated the allegations and dismissed them. So where exactly did this "convincing reporting" happen, and why didn't reliable Democratic Party mouthpieces such as those pick up on it?

Polls did indeed claim that Reagan-Carter was too close to call very nearly to the end. That shows what polls are worth. People routinely lie to pollsters, especially when it's an incompetent (supposedly) nice guy like Carter vs a competent (supposedly) not-so-nice guy like Reagan. Both Reagan and Thatcher were elected handily in elections that were supposedly 'too close to call' and then reelected in landslide races that were 'incumbent will win but not by a landslide'. Four major elections in less than 10 years totally screwed up by the media, and all in the same direction.

I was not surprised when Reagan was elected by a large margin. I worked in a small company (8-10 employees) in San Francisco doing air pollution measurement, mostly paid for by the EPA. The owner was a big Carter fan. The one gay employee hated Reagan but had no respect for Carter: I'm pretty sure he voted for John Anderson. I was the only open Reagan voter. Every other employee (5-7 in all) took me aside at one time or another to say "Don't tell [the boss] but I'm voting for Reagan, too". Polls lie because voters lie to pollsters and bosses and fellow employees, systematically concealing their intention to vote for the 'uncool' candidate, the one their friends will mock them for voting for. The fact that the polls showed Carter-Reagan as tight even in October 1980 just shows how incompetent and/or bigoted the pollsters were. They may have gotten better since then.

MathMom:Here's the Jeff MacNelly cartoon that sums up exactly why the hostages were released when they were released (link): I have a copy somewhere, but this Wonkette (!) link will have to do for now.

Dr. Weevil, thank a for that cartoon. I lived in the Middle East when this was going on. Remember vividly listening on short wave radio to Reagan's inaugural, when he announced the hostages had left Iranian air space.

Regean's two biggest mistakes were not vetoing the entire budget until the democrat-communists stripped the Boland Ammendment and having failed to do that he should have owned up to Iran-Contra and told the democrat-communists to fuck-off and dared to impeach him. They would have folded like cheap suits.

"Cook: 'Haven't the recent revelations in re: NSA spying on everyone wakened you up at least a little?'

(Drago): "I'm not allowed to 'wake up.'

"To wake up and point those things out makes me a racist."

????

Do you suppose the NSA's depredations have occurred only since Obama took office, or only under his orders? If so, you're more naive than I could have guessed. Besides, once a nation has officially crossed the torture line--which we officially did during the Bush administration, (though, unofficially, we've probably never not been over that line)--what violations of the law and of human rights would one imagine that nation will not and has not already transgressed?

I beg to differ. When Carter was pres, Americans were treated with rudeness in Saudi Arabia. After Reagan was elected, Saudis would lean out of their car windows and shout to me, with their first fingers in the air, "America Number One!"

We got better treatment and better discounts with Reagan in the White House.